Author
Topic: 46mp sensor useless for landscape? (Read 41643 times)

I am shure, that a GOOD 46MP sensor will be very useful for landscape (and cityscapes).Good means, that it has high dynamic range and low noise levels at least at lower ISOs.

Why? If you have subjects which reflect/emit light in the red, blue or green region they will excite just one type of subpixels (red, green or blue) substantially. In these cases a 46MP sensor will act as a ~12MP sensor for red and blue or a 24MP sensor for green.

All my cameras exhibit strange patterns around (nearly) monochromatic ("single colored") light sources like tail lights of cars (hopefully the right term?) which are often made of LEDs which emit in a narrow band around 650 nm. The same for blue or green LEDs. (EOS 20D, 40D and DPP for Raw development)

Another reason I would like to see higher resolutions is the fact that edges are rendered smoother with a higher number of pixels - some kind of antialiasing. I think, that is what Policar meant with the comparison of 6x7(cm) MF and 6x10(inch) large format.

But: Only if the noise levels/DR of the individual photosites in such a sensor are as good as the noise levels/DR of a full frame 12 MP camera! I think there is not much difference between 40D and 600D if it comes to "texture fidelity" (= how real look the complex textures of objects) The higher noise of smaller photosites cancels the higher resolution potential.

No maybe about it. Canon sucks. As we all know, the sensor is of paramount importance - the other aspects of camera performance, not to mention the lenses, are irrelevant. TonyY, sell your piece-o-crap 5DII and your eight L lenses and switch. Please. Your repeated posts about Canon's exceptional inferiority will be sorely missed, but we'll all manage to get through, somehow.

No maybe about it. Canon sucks. As we all know, the sensor is of paramount importance - the other aspects of camera performance, not to mention the lenses, are irrelevant. TonyY, sell your piece-o-crap 5DII and your eight L lenses and switch. Please. Your repeated posts about Canon's exceptional inferiority will be sorely missed, but we'll all manage to get through, somehow.

Too late for me to switch as a hobbyist, but ppl has not heavily invested in Canon needs to know some of the facts. You don't know how it felt when my friend's Sony Nex 5N + 30yr old Carl Zeiss outperformed my 5DII + TSE24II.

No maybe about it. Canon sucks. As we all know, the sensor is of paramount importance - the other aspects of camera performance, not to mention the lenses, are irrelevant. TonyY, sell your piece-o-crap 5DII and your eight L lenses and switch. Please. Your repeated posts about Canon's exceptional inferiority will be sorely missed, but we'll all manage to get through, somehow.

Too late for me to switch as a hobbyist, but ppl has not heavily invested in Canon needs to know some of the facts. You don't know how it felt when my friend's Sony Nex 5N + 30yr old Carl Zeiss outperformed my 5DII + TSE24II.

I'd like to see the methodology and numbers for that test! The TS-E 24mm L II is one of the sharpest lenses on earth, and even pitted against a Carl Zeiss lens, I'd expect it to outperform. No more anecdotes when you make a claim like that. You need to produce some actual results, and the methodology used to achieve those results.

Subjective "Well he liked the results more with the Nex/Zeiss combo." a scientific analysis makes not. ;P

No maybe about it. Canon sucks. As we all know, the sensor is of paramount importance - the other aspects of camera performance, not to mention the lenses, are irrelevant. TonyY, sell your piece-o-crap 5DII and your eight L lenses and switch. Please. Your repeated posts about Canon's exceptional inferiority will be sorely missed, but we'll all manage to get through, somehow.

Too late for me to switch as a hobbyist, but ppl has not heavily invested in Canon needs to know some of the facts. You don't know how it felt when my friend's Sony Nex 5N + 30yr old Carl Zeiss outperformed my 5DII + TSE24II.

What does that tell you about the skills of the operator, when a inferior camera outperforms a better one whih a much better lens?

I read CR because I get factual information to base my equipment purchasing decisions on. Which model of the Nikon Koolpix will give me 46mp for landscapes? Also will they have a problem with the color red also?

I read CR because I get factual information to base my equipment purchasing decisions on. Which model of the Nikon Koolpix will give me 46mp for landscapes?

Doesn't matter, any of them will do. SoNykon's sensors are so awesome that you can upsize an image from any of them (except the ones they sell to Canon for the PowerShots) to 46 MP and retain amazing IQ. Canon's senors, on the other hand, suck so bad that even if you downsample them in a futile attempt to increase their abysmal DR, it doesn't help.

I read CR because I get factual information to base my equipment purchasing decisions on. Which model of the Nikon Koolpix will give me 46mp for landscapes? Also will they have a problem with the color red also?

Since you went and invoked Nyquist, I will ask - what is the physical phenomenon that we are sampling, and what property(ies) of that phenomenon provide the limits from which we determine the minimal frequency to adequately capture all information present, and the optimal oversampling frequency?

Now you got me thinking and crunching some quick numerics. The sinc function is bipolar while the optical intensity is only unipolar which is a basic difference. Usually functions are not bandwidth limited unlike ideal low pass functions like the sinc. Therefore if you want to caputre ALL information you need infinitely fine sampling.

However if we fourier transform the 1D-function of an airy disc and compare the energy content per frequency to the sinc-function with a same resolution (according to the Raileigh criterion) we need about double the sampling frequency to catch almost all energy. Therefore if we sample twice as fine as the resolution according to the Rayleigh criterion, we should be fine. This sampling rate is about 15% finer than for MTF50%. (At least for a series of points, i don't know if it also holds for lines.)

So using the MTF50% megapixel values as a measure sounds good. A problem, however, is that the pixels have area and are not ideal sampling points. Therefore we must compensate for that by making the pixel areas much smaller than the resolution. In order to not throw away so much light we will have to increase the resolution to a multiple the MTF50% values in order to get close to 90% of the signal energy available in the optical resolution.

No maybe about it. Canon sucks. As we all know, the sensor is of paramount importance - the other aspects of camera performance, not to mention the lenses, are irrelevant. TonyY, sell your piece-o-crap 5DII and your eight L lenses and switch. Please. Your repeated posts about Canon's exceptional inferiority will be sorely missed, but we'll all manage to get through, somehow.

Too late for me to switch as a hobbyist, but ppl has not heavily invested in Canon needs to know some of the facts. You don't know how it felt when my friend's Sony Nex 5N + 30yr old Carl Zeiss outperformed my 5DII + TSE24II.

I'd like to see the methodology and numbers for that test! The TS-E 24mm L II is one of the sharpest lenses on earth, and even pitted against a Carl Zeiss lens, I'd expect it to outperform. No more anecdotes when you make a claim like that. You need to produce some actual results, and the methodology used to achieve those results.

Subjective "Well he liked the results more with the Nex/Zeiss combo." a scientific analysis makes not. ;P

Not a scientific test, it is not a fair test due to the sensor format, focal length (I have to walk half way closer to include the same scene/view)... So, just take look at the center resolution of the image. Don't get me wrong, TSE 24II is a terrific lens, just the 5DII sensor can't handle it.

Not a scientific test, it is not a fair test due to the sensor format, focal length (I have to walk half way closer to include the same scene/view)... So, just take look at the center resolution of the image. Don't get me wrong, TSE 24II is a terrific lens, just the 5DII sensor can't handle it.

1: The NEX image is sharpened by camera software much more than the 5Dii image. If you sharpen the 5dii image you get the same artifacts around the trees but a much better percepted sharpness for other image contents. But if you look at the fine details you will see much more subtle detail on the 5Dii image - like the palm leaves against the sky.

2: The NEX image shows details in a larger scale (about 20% larger in the image previews) which might help to give a sharper perception at first glance (without necessarily showing more photographic detail).

No maybe about it. Canon sucks. As we all know, the sensor is of paramount importance - the other aspects of camera performance, not to mention the lenses, are irrelevant. TonyY, sell your piece-o-crap 5DII and your eight L lenses and switch. Please. Your repeated posts about Canon's exceptional inferiority will be sorely missed, but we'll all manage to get through, somehow.

Too late for me to switch as a hobbyist, but ppl has not heavily invested in Canon needs to know some of the facts. You don't know how it felt when my friend's Sony Nex 5N + 30yr old Carl Zeiss outperformed my 5DII + TSE24II.

I'd like to see the methodology and numbers for that test! The TS-E 24mm L II is one of the sharpest lenses on earth, and even pitted against a Carl Zeiss lens, I'd expect it to outperform. No more anecdotes when you make a claim like that. You need to produce some actual results, and the methodology used to achieve those results.

Subjective "Well he liked the results more with the Nex/Zeiss combo." a scientific analysis makes not. ;P

Not a scientific test, it is not a fair test due to the sensor format, focal length (I have to walk half way closer to include the same scene/view)... So, just take look at the center resolution of the image. Don't get me wrong, TSE 24II is a terrific lens, just the 5DII sensor can't handle it.

SUBJECTIVE!! "Just take a look at the center resolution of the image"?!? What the hell kind of comparison is that!?! That's exactly what I said NOT to do!

BTW, something is seriously up with those photos. The Nex seems to have captured trees in the background that simply don't exist in the Canon shot. Unless your trying to tell me the Sony NEX is capable of generating content that isn't there, an that that is its strength, I find this "test" 100% bogus. All your doing is saying:

"Well, the NEX image looks better to me!"

Sorry, you can't objectively determine if either of those photos is "better", too many variables (pixel size, focal length, camera settings, etc. etc.), not the least of which is the fact that you manually focused, which adds a huge human element of non-deterministic subjectivity to the test right from the get-go. If you were using contrast-detection AF in live view, or had a proper test chart to help you gauge when the image was well and truly focused, that's a different thing...but this....